Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Sat, 29 June 2013 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3413F21F9E65 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gN2S8IdHHGpo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [IPv6:2607:f2f8:ab14::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C84721F9E63 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:d:5e7:224:e8ff:fe30:109b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:d:5e7:224:e8ff:fe30:109b]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24E9922B0C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:35:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dougbarton.us; t=1372484102; bh=3ogzYUiwnw7DiEVQvwYhs0vPOm3C320CeWiHeht+WV0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=XDUC7j4j7p/LssF/EMMAgkS+8EqYUFISc8fh36eFIRQ8U9mMAadqUSTR49DL5hHJC 4/idotmV5rjmiMd4DpRr3NKl9mFXvahcEm29rJdZicsj+ZFmWLovIpeJ+VPMhNmZ5F RUJu1AXuN5RnX7gONiXaveykx4wf8W0mWo/9hJTE=
Message-ID: <51CE7205.4090509@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:35:01 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt
References: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85151@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F85F38@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20130624204008.GB3647@virgo.local> <20130624205226.GC3647@virgo.local> <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2509F8761C@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <51C902DC.9000408@gmail.com> <m24ncmaozs.wl%randy@psg.com> <2EA20F89-02F5-4D06-90EE-A7D2974045A3@employees.org> <m2li5yj7u3.wl%randy@psg.com> <3B0D9447-D39F-4165-9B43-019C3513101A@employees.org> <m2ip12j6d9.wl%randy@psg.com> <A0662700-628E-4032-89ED-6621B0867820@apple.com> <51CA2C56.1080809@gmail.com> <CAKC-DJjw+3jSuf7SRnEY6c-1sCbJgdf40cRZnDs4ZvAPaEDQWA@mail.gmail.com> <BF5BEF74-56C7-470D-9132-95EA0F0284F7@apple.com> <51CDF8BF.6060002@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983180B00B6@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <51CE0D90.7090007@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983180B02A3@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <51CE6079.7060205@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51CE6079.7060205@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:35:03 -0000

On 06/28/2013 09:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On one point...
>
>
> On 29/06/2013 10:44, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> ...
>>> and (b) accepting that strapping the MTU at 1280 is
>>> a reasonable short term policy. If (a) progressively pervades
>>> the installed base then (b) can be dropped as the years go by.
>>
>> Once a link sets a 1280 MTU, how will it know that it is now
>> safe to increase the MTU? And, once set, how can we expect
>> operators to go back and re-set in the future. IMHO, strapping
>> the MTU to 1280 everywhere now would become ossified long into
>> the future.
>
> It would certainly take years, but I think the end result would be
> implementors raising the default to the real link MTU, one stack
> at a time. I don't think you find many IPv4 stacks today with
> the MTU set low by default.

I think an argument can be made that in today's world 1500 MTU (which is 
the fairly ubiquitous default) IS actually low.

Doug